[drumhead]

They're wrong and right in equal measure, but what they do is publish their opinions with conviction and back it up with sound arguments and facts. I remember reading articles they published in the late 80s about their belief that Japans economic boom was about to end, but they were also one of the biggest backers of Bush's invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about. I haven't read it for a while so I don't know what they're like now but for forward economic intelligence they were always one of the best.

[specialist]

> invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about

They did publish a correction. Some pithy blurb like "Blah blah blah, we regret the error."

To their credit, most warmongers didn't have the stones to do a mea culpa.

Regardless, I unsubscribed and never looked back. (Ditto The Atlantic, for the same reason. Impotently, I didn't have a NY Times sub to cancel in protest.)

During the run up to Bush's Folly, one of their wizened writers related how The Economist regarded the Vietnam War, noting the similarities, noting The Economist's moral failings, wondering if they'd repeat the same mistake.

[teamonkey]

I think there’s a human bias where we remember predictions being wrong more strongly than those being right.

The study shows that they weren’t wrong or right in equal measure, they were right more often, considerably so. But that doesn’t mean that they were always right.

[modo_mario]

>but they were also one of the biggest backers of Bush's invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about.

Were they wrong or were they insincere/dishonest?